Jeffrey Renz - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Jeffrey Renz

$Research paper thumbnail of What Spending Clause? (Or the President\u27s Paramour): An Examination of the Views of Hamilton, Madison, and Story on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution$

This article tests three interpretations of the General Welfare Clause that persisted prior to th... more This article tests three interpretations of the General Welfare Clause that persisted prior to the U.S. v. Butler decision against the text of the Constitution and discusses historical conditions that add to the understanding of that clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the author examines: the strong Hamiltonian interpretation, the Madison interpretation, and the weak Hamiltonian or Story interpretation. The author concludes that in the course of testing each hypothesis, a surprising conclusion was reached: all interpretations failed to survive

Montana Law Review, 1982

It follows that we speak concerning Purprestures. A purpresture, or more properly speaking, a Por... more It follows that we speak concerning Purprestures. A purpresture, or more properly speaking, a Porpresture, is when anything is unjustly encroached upon; against the King; as is the Royal Demesnes, or in obstructing public ways, or in turning public waters from their right course.. .. For this purpose the following Writ shall issue-The King to the Sheriff, Health. I command you, that you compel N., that without delay, he appear in the Court of I. his Lord, and there abide by the right concerning his free Tenement, that he hath encroached against him as he says, least, &c. Witness, &c. Glanville, P. Federal courts lack authority to impose more stringent effluent limitations under federal common law than those imposed by the agency charged by Congress with administering this comprehensive scheme. Rehnquist, j. 2 I.

Mont Law, 2004

takes on "Stare Decisis in Montapa," 65 Mont. L. Rev. 41 (2004), in the October issue of The Mont... more takes on "Stare Decisis in Montapa," 65 Mont. L. Rev. 41 (2004), in the October issue of The Montana Løwyer.t Her article is inaptly named. It should have been entitled, "A Cursory I ook at Stare Decisis." In "Stare Decisis", I concluded that from 1991-2000 the Montana Supreme Court issued 109 opinions that overruled precedent. This was substantially more than previous decades. It was substantially more than other similar state supreme courts during the same decade. I also concluded that many of those decisions were unwaranted and others were improper. "2d Look" [Ms. Dudik's article] takes issue with some of my methodology. It questions my analysis of three cases. Its initial argument addresses only one small aspect of "Stare Decisis"the debunking of the claim that the Court's high rate of overruling correlated to the increase in its caseload. "2d Look" says that a footnote in the National Center for State Courts'report, State Court Caseload Statistics, 2001 (from which I calculated caseload estimates for Montana and nine other state supreme courts), declared Montana's data incomplete. Therefore, it concludes, my estimate is unreliable. "2d Look" also concludes, incorrectly, that I did not include unreported orders and non-cite opinions in my workload estimates when I conducted a decade-bydecade comparison of the Supreme Court's caseload. There is a simple explanation for her complaints: She failed to read two footnotes. Finally, "2dLook" complains that I have "misread" the cases. Dudik relies Lnrren s upon her reading ofthree of 109 cases to demonstrate this.

Montana Law Review, 2004

* I want to thank my colleagues Bari Burke, Thomas Huff, and Rob Natelson for taking the time to ... more * I want to thank my colleagues Bari Burke, Thomas Huff, and Rob Natelson for taking the time to review my draft and for their excellent comments. Hillary Wandler has done an extraordinary job in suggesting revisions and for that I thank her.

Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1984

PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW statements more closely. In addition, those courts apply the SEPA requirem... more PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW statements more closely. In addition, those courts apply the SEPA requirements for circulation of and comments to an EIS more strictly. Finally, the majority of state courts have required state and local agencies to abide by the substantive policies as well as the procedural requirements of their state acts. Since 1969, NEPA, and federal cases interpreting it, have served as the source of persuasive authority in state cases interpreting and applying SEPA. 8 Since the late 1970's a large body of state law, interpreting and applying state environmental policy acts, has developed. This article analyzes the body of state case law that has arisen as a result of the interpretation and application of state environmental policy acts. I. THE EIS PROCESS AND COMMON REQUIREMENTS OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACTS All state environmental policy acts require, to varying degrees, preparation of a statement or report (EIS) describing the environmental impacts of a proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The EIS process follows a common scheme. First, a proposal surfaces which calls for action by a governmental body. Under the requirements of a SEPA, the governmental body determines if the action falls within the purview of the SEPA. It then determines if the environmental effects of the proposal, if any, are significant. If so, the agency prepares a draft and a final EIS, and, finally, reaches a decision on the proposal. This process serves as the framework to analyze and compare the requirements of various SEPA's in the following discussion. Three points of analysis are necessary in any discussion of the SEPA schemes. The first point is found in the question: when must an EIS be prepared? This comprises several subquestions: (1) Who, among the categories of state agencies, local governments, quasi-governmental bodies, and private entities, must prepare an EIS? (2) What constitutes a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment? (3) What must an agency do before it determines that an EIS is or is not necessary? The second point lies in the requirements for the contents of the EIS. Stated differently, when is an EIS "adequate"? The third point is, how are decision-makers required to treat an EIS once it is prepared? The following analysis will also comment upon the standard of review which state courts apply to each of these steps and consider specific provisions in state environmental policy acts and other state laws which

John Marshall L Rev, 1999

This part states, "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise... more This part states, "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Id.

Mont. L. Rev., 2003

Renz wrote the ACLU of Montana's amicus curiae brief in support of rehearing State v. Long. 1. An... more Renz wrote the ACLU of Montana's amicus curiae brief in support of rehearing State v. Long. 1. Anonymous, see State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 76, 700 P.2d 153, 161 (1985) (Sheehy, J., dissenting). 2. NettikSimmons had graduated one year before. Dobson was then a law student. NettikSimmons had been the Montana Law Review's executive editor. Dobson was to be its business manager. NettikSimmons had written an essay and co-authored two articles on state constitutional law, including the soon to be published Right of

Mont. L. Rev., 1994

One commonly hears complaints about endless criminal appeals. Duncan McKenzie has been on Montana... more One commonly hears complaints about endless criminal appeals. Duncan McKenzie has been on Montana's death row since 1975. His direct and post-conviction appeals take up thirteen entries in the Montana Digest, and these are only a partial listing. When I attended the NAACP Legal Defense Fund conference on capital litigation in 1991, I commented that while Montana had added some prisoners to death row, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to treat its cases as if they arrived with a presumption of error. A former law clerk from the Ninth Circuit told me after the meeting that my analysis was accurate. McKenzie and other capital and non-capital prisoners are entitled to seek relief in Montana state courts by means of the Montana Post-Conviction Hearing Act (MPCHA). 1 Since 1967, Montana has developed a substantial body of case law interpreting and applying the MPCHA. No one has compiled this body of law into a coherent description of the rules applied in post-conviction cases. Moreover, I do not intend to engage in an in-depth analysis of post-conviction relief for death row prisoners. Capital litigation is as rare and specialized as antitrust litigation. Rather, I intend to review and describe Montana's post-conviction jurisprudence. However, this Article will reveal some of the reasons why Montana's capital prisoners seem to enjoy endless appeals. Once convicted, prisoners' litigation does not necessarily end with their first, direct appeal. They may exercise both federal and state post-conviction remedies. The criminal defense bar must understand the scope of these remedies, how they interrelate, and how actions at the trial level and on direct appeal will affect resort to post-conviction remedies. This Article reviews the history and background of the MPCHA. It then discusses the procedural rules found in the MPCHA and in the case law interpreting it. The Article briefly discusses the relationship between state post-conviction relief and federal habeas corpus and the federal doctrines of ex

Montana Law Review, 1982

Mont Law, 2004

Montana Law Review, 2004

Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1984

John Marshall L Rev, 1999

Mont. L. Rev., 2003

Mont. L. Rev., 1994